• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion Socialism Discussion Thread

Reader mode
Terrell said:
I gotta say, it’s a bit of whiplash for me to follow up watching the goings on in politics in the Philippines to watching the goings on in Australian politics. It’s kinda night and day, in a sense.
For those unaware, Australians seem to have strongly beat back against media/propaganda narratives that enforce the 2-party system in spite of having preferential voting and opted to give neither of the 2 main parties normally in power a majority government, with a huge swath of Green and independent MPs set to be elected and ousting safe-seat Liberal/National MPs in the process.
Speaking of UK Labour, AUS Labor is basically their future, a right-to-work party captured by the corporate lobbies (in Australia’s case, the fossil fuel lobby in particular). UK Labour was always kinda there, but imagine it worse.
While I know that electoralism isn’t something people put their faith in within these circles, I think the resounding “fuck you” to the established political narrative with a double-digit crossbench most importantly demonstrates a huge rise in dissent within Australia against its status quo. And rightly so, they’ve been hammered super-hard by the climate crisis, particularly the floods and the Black Summer bushfires in the past 3 years that killed billions of wild animals (and worsened extinction levels for many, some might already be rendered extinct either by burning, drowning due to seeking refuge in water or through massive habitat loss) and left 65,000 people homeless, no small amount of which never recovered from their homelessness.

It’s also a clear sign that some standing cynical narratives are falling apart, particularly “we’ll care about the climate crisis when it directly effects middle-class white people”… too late, mate, already has, people in power are still doing next to nothing. And people are warming up to the fact that the tools typically at their disposal have limited means to get things done to save them from the worst.
Click to expand...


They aren't doing next to nothing.

They have been preparing for some time. It's just their plan is to just save themselves and their quality if life while we burn.

 
Crusters said:
They aren't doing next to nothing.

They have been preparing for some time. It's just their plan is to just save themselves and their quality if life while we burn.

Click to expand...
It sounds evil, but it's pipe-dream shit, elaborate high-stakes gambling at best. Make no mistake, there isn't a single thing they can do to survive any better than we do in a societal collapse, they're just escaping into fantasies. I look to what they're doing right now with technology just to keep the status quo and the miserable failures they're having on that front as a sign that they're as doomed as the rest of us.

They can't get something as comparatively simple as carbon capture and sequestration to leave the tarmac, let alone get off the ground, and we're to believe that they're going to crack the puzzle of how to upload consciousness, colonize Mars or even staff their bunkers? Nah, what you're seeing is doomsday prepper nonsense scaled up to more ambitious heights by having more zeroes on a ledger, but it all pans out the same. Besides, most of these supposed tech savants can't create anything for shit, a lot of what our complex tech is built on is just stuff that originated from multiple decades of R&D from government agencies like DARPA... and even they would occasionally need the help of a inventor/movie star to get certain things off the ground.

And, before anyone says so, no, I genuinely do not believe things like carbon capture and sequestration are elaborate ruses by politicians and corporate lobbyists to spend billions doing nothing while they twirl their moustaches, they genuinely believe in this shit, technological ways to keep society the same as it's always been with no long-term consequences, which makes it somehow scarier how desperately naive everyone who pushes this shit is being. They don't want the world to fundamentally change, because the ground shifts underneath those with power every time it does, and they're having none of that. And no one would bother doing any of that if they could just retreat to their Snowpiercer at the end of it all.

Even renewables and the constant chase for nuclear fusion power, to varying but lesser degrees, are the same way. Money flows in their direction trying to make them better and more efficient, but now that we're hitting the stumbling block of rare earth metal depletion to get a full global rollout, exploitation will continue, but focused on a different finite resource and sacrificing fossil fuel billionaires on the alter to make a similar-but-different status quo until someone cracks renewables with common materials (which I'm more hopeful about than CCS and fusion power, but not by THAT much). It's stopgaps from top to bottom, some just maintain more of the status quo than others.
 
Last edited:
Terrell said:
It sounds evil, but it's pipe-dream shit, elaborate high-stakes gambling at best. Make no mistake, there isn't a single thing they can do to survive any better than we do in a societal collapse, they're just escaping into fantasies. I look to what they're doing right now with technology just to keep the status quo and the miserable failures they're having on that front as a sign that they're as doomed as the rest of us.

They can't get something as comparatively simple as carbon capture and sequestration to leave the tarmac, let alone get off the ground, and we're to believe that they're going to crack the puzzle of how to upload consciousness, colonize Mars or even staff their bunkers? Nah, what you're seeing is doomsday prepper nonsense scaled up to more ambitious heights by having more zeroes on a ledger, but it all pans out the same. Besides, most of these supposed tech savants can't create anything for shit, a lot of what our complex tech is built on is just stuff that originated from multiple decades of R&D from government agencies like DARPA... and even they would occasionally need the help of a inventor/movie star to get certain things off the ground.

And, before anyone says so, no, I genuinely do not believe things like carbon capture and sequestration are elaborate ruses by politicians and corporate lobbyists to spend billions doing nothing while they twirl their moustaches, they genuinely believe in this shit, technological ways to keep society the same as it's always been with no long-term consequences, which makes it somehow scarier how desperately naive everyone who pushes this shit is being. They don't want the world to fundamentally change, because the ground shifts underneath those with power every time it does, and they're having none of that. And no one would bother doing any of that if they could just retreat to their Snowpiercer at the end of it all.

Even renewables and the constant chase for nuclear fusion power, to varying but lesser degrees, are the same way. Money flows in their direction trying to make them better and more efficient, but now that we're hitting the stumbling block of rare earth metal depletion to get a full global rollout, exploitation will continue, but focused on a different finite resource and sacrificing fossil fuel billionaires on the alter to make a similar-but-different status quo until someone cracks renewables with common materials (which I'm more hopeful about than CCS and fusion power, but not by THAT much). It's stopgaps from top to bottom, some just maintain more of the status quo than others.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound evil, it is evil, pipedream or not. Also it doesn't really matter whether it's a pipe dream or not, as that is what they are devoting their ridiculous resources to, as opposed to things that are not pipe dreams.
 
Crusters said:
It doesn't sound evil, it is evil, pipedream or not. Also it doesn't really matter whether it's a pipe dream or not, as that is what they are devoting their ridiculous resources to, as opposed to things that are not pipe dreams.
Click to expand...
The article is a handful of hedge fund manager finbro billionaires talking about ways to survive the end of empire leading to a full societal collapse and then goes into a transhumanist argument because Silicon Valley billionaires want to keep their wealth and power long after their human frailties take them, as though one equates to the other.
But billionaires have been trying to delay or invalidate human frailty for as long as they have existed, but outright escape has always eluded them, no matter how they try, having to satisfy themselves with progeny and familial legacy.
But on further reflection and discussion with a friend and fellow comrade on the subject, I don’t ascribe these attempts at transhumanism to wanting to survive the incoming end of empire and societal collapse like the article author does. They want to survive because of their money and power; they aren’t engaged in these behaviours because they want to live longer/forever for the sake of it, they do it to live longer/forever as they are now, with their wealth and power intact rather than some mere extended existence, which means they must also delay or stop the end of empire. Technology-as-saviour is born of this, as I already mentioned. Their transhumanism is paired with attempts to prevent the end of empire (and make a profit doing it wherever possible), with both practical proven methods and hail-maries in equal measure, depending on what industry their money comes from.

In this sense, these 5 finbros in the article are far more realistic, in that they understand that the end of empire is coming because of intra-class conflict among billionaires on how to maintain the status quo (and which of their own class might need to be sacrificed to do so) impeding all attempts to do so, these folks in the article just devolve into the billionaire form of “prepper” behaviour instead. But to ascribe “evil” as we typically consider it to that thinking perhaps isn’t appropriate, because it requires these individuals to be cognizant in their part in the end of empire, when many indicators point to the opposite, that their pursuit of wealth strictly in the financial sector - which they see as separate from anything close to direct application of human suffering that they are ignorant or blind to their part in (”I’m just here to make money, I’m not responsible for the human suffering performed by industry, that’s on them“ and other such stupidity) - gives them a belief that the end of empire is something they played little to no part in and must work around to maintain their lifestyles as they know it. But, as capitalists with no concept of how to do so without profit motives to enlist labourers, they begin to consider other morally-bankrupt alternatives (which, honestly, isn’t uncommon, believing as many liberals and conservatives do that capitalism is all that upholds moral and civil society), without connecting the dots that waged labour in service to their wealth is already morally-bankrupt.

Is it stupid? Selfish? Callous? Disgusting? Yes to all of those things. But evil? That all depends if you subscribe to the concept of the “banality of evil”, where (and I’m really rendering down this very complicated idea) evil should be expanded to any action where a human being causes or allows suffering upon another by failing to engage thoughtfuly in their actions or critically analyze the thoughts, beliefs and circumstances that lead said person to take or permit those actions. And if you allow your definition of evil to encompass that many people and their actions, I can’t dispute that and I come closer and closer to agreeing with that assessment every day. But until that definition that includes the banality of evil is universally accepted, “evil” is a loaded and all-too-subjective word, especially when it’s often used by liberals in this world to uphold their particular brand of cruelty and suffering over someone else’s. It’s why I trend away from its use as a descriptor for what I deem bad or unconscionable behaviour, anyways.
 
Terrell said:
The article is a handful of hedge fund manager finbro billionaires talking about ways to survive the end of empire leading to a full societal collapse and then goes into a transhumanist argument because Silicon Valley billionaires want to keep their wealth and power long after their human frailties take them, as though one equates to the other.
But billionaires have been trying to delay or invalidate human frailty for as long as they have existed, but outright escape has always eluded them, no matter how they try, having to satisfy themselves with progeny and familial legacy.
But on further reflection and discussion with a friend and fellow comrade on the subject, I don’t ascribe these attempts at transhumanism to wanting to survive the incoming end of empire and societal collapse like the article author does. They want to survive because of their money and power; they aren’t engaged in these behaviours because they want to live longer/forever for the sake of it, they do it to live longer/forever as they are now, with their wealth and power intact rather than some mere extended existence, which means they must also delay or stop the end of empire. Technology-as-saviour is born of this, as I already mentioned. Their transhumanism is paired with attempts to prevent the end of empire (and make a profit doing it wherever possible), with both practical proven methods and hail-maries in equal measure, depending on what industry their money comes from.

In this sense, these 5 finbros in the article are far more realistic, in that they understand that the end of empire is coming because of intra-class conflict among billionaires on how to maintain the status quo (and which of their own class might need to be sacrificed to do so) impeding all attempts to do so, these folks in the article just devolve into the billionaire form of “prepper” behaviour instead. But to ascribe “evil” as we typically consider it to that thinking perhaps isn’t appropriate, because it requires these individuals to be cognizant in their part in the end of empire, when many indicators point to the opposite, that their pursuit of wealth strictly in the financial sector - which they see as separate from anything close to direct application of human suffering that they are ignorant or blind to their part in (”I’m just here to make money, I’m not responsible for the human suffering performed by industry, that’s on them“ and other such stupidity) - gives them a belief that the end of empire is something they played little to no part in and must work around to maintain their lifestyles as they know it. But, as capitalists with no concept of how to do so without profit motives to enlist labourers, they begin to consider other morally-bankrupt alternatives (which, honestly, isn’t uncommon, believing as many liberals and conservatives do that capitalism is all that upholds moral and civil society), without connecting the dots that waged labour in service to their wealth is already morally-bankrupt.

Is it stupid? Selfish? Callous? Disgusting? Yes to all of those things. But evil? That all depends if you subscribe to the concept of the “banality of evil”, where (and I’m really rendering down this very complicated idea) evil should be expanded to any action where a human being causes or allows suffering upon another by failing to engage thoughtfuly in their actions or critically analyze the thoughts, beliefs and circumstances that lead said person to take or permit those actions. And if you allow your definition of evil to encompass that many people and their actions, I can’t dispute that and I come closer and closer to agreeing with that assessment every day. But until that definition that includes the banality of evil is universally accepted, “evil” is a loaded and all-too-subjective word, especially when it’s often used by liberals in this world to uphold their particular brand of cruelty and suffering over someone else’s. It’s why I trend away from its use as a descriptor for what I deem bad or unconscionable behaviour, anyways.
Click to expand...


Their success or failure is completely irrelevant. It's an opportunity cost. They are spending the time and resources on trying to escape, rather than trying to mitigate or solve the issue, and they posess over 50% of the worlds resources.
 
Crusters said:
Their success or failure is completely irrelevant. It's an opportunity cost. They are spending the time and resources on trying to escape, rather than trying to mitigate or solve the issue, and they posess over 50% of the worlds resources.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, I don't see these behaviours as their only answer or think that’s where the bulk of their money is being spent, it's just that some of their answers aren't panning out like they hoped and those answers vary by what capitalist you're looking at. I know we talk about the billionaire class and the solidarity they have, but there's limits to that solidarity, because they're not a monolith, but they do share common ground, more often than not. This is a "not" scenario, however.

Oil and gas barons have poured billions and billions of their own money into CCS (at least $1.5 billion in the last 5 years alone from the figures I've seen, if not more) and used their corporate lobby to spend several billions more in public tax money on it, as well, money they used to use to fund new refineries and exploration projects.
If that private investment amount since 2016 looks small, it’s because most large-scale CCS projects were fired up around 2010 and have missed their unambitious yearly targets every single time, which decreased public funding and caused a lack of faith in the technology in its current iteration by capitalists and the market overall, most of the reduced funding for it being relegated back to R&D to take another swing. Additionally, oil and gas billionaires are directing their companies to slowly buy back public shares in their own companies, trying to lessen the impact of a highly-probable crash in the value of their companies in the long term before reverting them to delisted corporations.
But meanwhile, private investment in low to zero carbon energy was something close to $250 billion In 2016 alone, primarily invested in wind, solar and off-peak energy storage solutions to make up for wind and solar’s primary shortcomings. In fact, private investment in these technologies grossly exceeded public investment (less than 10% of money spent on renewable energy in 2016 was public funding), mostly due to public purses being beholden to the fossil fuel energy lobby (and I'll get back to that). With these numbers, it’s all but guaranteed that FAR more of their money is being spent to mitigate climate change than escape the effects of it as a whole.

That is not to say that investment in renewable energy is some altruistic endeavour, despite the knock-on effects to the public well-being they will cause and, as the above paragraphs illustrate, money is not exclusively flowing in a positive direction.

Some capitalists, indeed, do not want to see a world where capitalism ends under any circumstance; some of them see climate change as just as much of an existential crisis to capitalism as they ascribe to the rise of socialism, and we all know how much the highest classes have done to move heaven and earth preventing the ascendency of socialism, don't we? And it's not hard to understand why when it's clear how one begets the other, that the climate crisis is a major driver of 18-35yo people abandoning liberal capitalism in numbers not seen since the early 20th century, a fact that some capitalists have clearly cottoned onto and aren't happy about. This is part of what’s motivating 100s of billions per year in investment in renewables.

And I'm sorry I've diverged from the response so much, but this all demonstrates that there are capitalists who absolutely are investing very heavily in a better world but for ignoble reasons, like keeping it a decidedly capitalist world at the end, and it highlights some interesting points.

The other part that's pushing that investment forward is that the energy sector under capitalism is a captive market due to its absolute necessity, the sector that makes nearly every other facet in the modern era possible (right after or tied with the financial sector), near or at the top of the capitalist pyramid. And fossil fuel barons are in the weakest position they've ever been in right now, so a prime opportunity has been created for industrialists (heavy machinery manufacturers in particular) and industrial electronics tycoons (aka non-Silicon Valley electronics firms) to knock them down a peg and take up their position higher on the food chain, because re-building our entire energy grid around renewables (which industrialists and electronics manufacturers will be contracted to build) would net them several trillions of dollars in profits and win them all the power that fossil fuels currently have on our society. Not altruistic, but in the absence of socialism... it's better than the alternative, if only because it won't kill as many millions of people maybe? And until such a time as there's no need for rare earth minerals to build renewables, they would have allies in the non-fossil fuel resource billionaires from the mining sector. (of course, the mining companies have been hedging their bets for some time now, by originally trying to poo-poo renewables - which ingratiated them to their fossil fuel peers - in favour of nuclear power, another more finite resource that they control, but that's starting to backfire on them as they ran down the clock til it was too late to capitalize on the renewable fear-mongering and most of the world still doesn't have anywhere to bury nuclear waste, but that's a whole other discussion).

What I believe we are seeing, from everything I've already mentioned, is the dull roar of the beginnings of intra-class conflict among the billionaire set, with clear divisions.
Oil and gas billionaires have effectively made themselves no friends and I've come to understand that obfuscating the risks of climate change had as much to do with hiding that information from other capitalists, so as not to show weakness in their business model that someone else could capitalize on, as it did from the public, but they've now run out the clock and there's no escaping this truth. But being the head of the energy sector since the 19th century at least has its perks, and those perks include a LOT of government influence through things like lobbying and politicians desperately wanting to literally keep the lights on. They use this to stop renewable projects, shut down fully operational nuclear facilities and promote investment in stupid CCS projects that they hoped like hell would work and keep them in the energy business and shut out rivals, because of how much power the energy business gives them in society, more than most other capitalists could hope for. And because of the sheer volume of money it makes, fossil fuel companies also have many allies in the financial sector.
On the other side, in spite of stifled public investment, private companies that would reap a windfall on renewables work the infrastructure angle with massive private investments in the technology that accelerates renewable energy adoption and leave Silicon Valley and the like to work the consumer angle through EVs and such, and their rapid rate of technological improvement over the past 10 years makes that evident. They see oil & gas tycoons as causing and allowing capitalism to crumble on their watch, unfit for the position the oil & gas billionaires sit in and want to take that power for themselves, where they think it rightfully belongs due to the self-destructive profiteering with no long-term planning that fossil fuel billionaires have exhibited.

And you see this play out in real time. The pro-renewable camp tries to draw lines between "good capitalists" and "bad capitalists" and leverages strong public opinion in favour of stopping climate change for their benefit, while the pro-fossil fuel camp works to oust politicians that don't serve their interests (with conservatives being the most likely to belly up to their bar exclusively), run loads of political advertising to scare the public into voting the way they want them to and keep all that private investment in renewables from translating into actual public works projects and ruining their chance, however slim, to right their own ship with bullshit like CCS.

And so far, this fight has dragged out with no clear beneficiary, as most billionaire fights tend to go in the beginning until someone finally wins a decade or so later. But yes, I do in fact believe we're witnessing billionaire-on-billionaire knuckles-meet-face fighting, and one of the few instances where there's been any hint that it's happening in the public sphere. But the data sure tells the story that it's happening. And yeah, some of the rest who aren't directly involved in the fighting or think they know how it will play out? Yeah, some of them are exclusively building bunkers and finding means to escape. But I think you'll find the number of them doing that, and the money they spend doing it, isn't as much as one would think, and we should not be led to believe that they will just stand down from the capitalist project, letting it crumble as they try to walk away, because some of them ain't done with it yet if they have their say, but DO think some capitalists need to be put out to pasture. There's only so much solidarity among billionaires, because they're cannibalistic and don't mind killing and eating the weakest in their herd to protect the rest.
 
I was reading about startups funding rounds by venture capital and it sounds at lot like Ponzi schemes (where earlier investors' profits come mostly from newer investors, instead of an actual product/service)

Like, there's an actual product/service with potential, but the funding rounds are needed because they're not having profits or need a boost right? Feels like such a flimsy setup, just trying to make it to the next funding round hoping for growth. There may be several mini-bubbles in stuff like that
 
CherryGodzilla said:
Nice thread too bad it’s dead ☹️ I wanna learn more about Socialism
Click to expand...
Hi. I just joined to discuss socialism. Maybe we can get something going here. I've been an advocate of socialism for over 40 years. Yeah I'm old. Heh heh.

What I have found on every political forum I've been on is that even those who say they don't know anything about it and "want" more info on it, actually already have all the info they want and they're really not open to learning anything new. Well, it's not 100% but it's common. So I keep looking for someone who is open to considering new details even if they already know what socialism is.

I guess I might first ask you if you could define what you mean by "socialism". Or, maybe you have a specific question you would like answered?
 
Last edited:
What would a socialist society actually look like, and what is needed for it to actually work? Those working for socialism today cannot possibly map out the future with precision, but over a century of theoretical study and historical experience have confirmed several basic features of a socialist society:

• a working class-run government with universal and direct suffrage and representatives subject to recall;
• a democratically planned, central economy, made possible by the democratic public ownership of key industries and the banks;
• guaranteed quality public housing, healthcare, transportation, and education for all, as well as robust social services;
• cooperative internationalism respecting nations’ rights of self-determination.

A socialist economy would have to be planned democratically in order to work. Far unlike what’s been pitched by decades of capitalist propaganda, a genuine socialist government would not be dictatorial. On the contrary, socialism would extend and deepen democracy far beyond the limited version that capitalism can grant, i.e. a democracy for the rich.

Under genuine socialism, everyone could take part in deciding how society and the economy would be run, on the basis of open and constructive debate. This would require a dramatic reduction of the work week with no loss of pay, universal childcare, and a full array of language and accessibility tools. With the participation of the whole of society in decision-making, the iron grip of the rich over workplaces, schools, and communities would be broken. Of course, it does not make sense for every individual to attend to every decision there is to make in such a complex, globalized society. Therefore, democratically-elected representatives would still be necessary for decision-making at local, national, and international levels. Even in the workplace, your “manager” would be elected from among the best workers, and would rely heavily upon collective decision-making rather than unilateral calls out of step with workers’ observations or interests. With the right of immediate democratic recall, these leaders would also be far more accountable than anything seen under capitalism.

This is a brief snapshot of some general principles of socialism. Obviously, such a system cannot be instantaneously imposed upon winning state power due to size and complexity. It would take time to build, one step at a time, and it would require strategies and a plan for executing those strategies. Historically, as in the cases of the USSR and China, what the world saw was a process of testing, trying, and working out strategies and processes. As with every economic system in the past, there were mistakes made and corrections needed. Consequently no country has yet completed the work of establishing a functioning, stable socialist socio-economic system. Each one has either failed at some point, or continues to work at building toward a socialist system.
 
Last edited:
CherryGodzilla said:
No it’s just a lot to unpack and I come here to talk about gaming. However, I do wanna learn about it more.
Click to expand...
Well thanks for the reply. And if you want to learn then just ask a simple question and I'll give you the clearest, simplest answer I can. Promise. I'm here to help people understand.
 
Terrell said:
As I mentioned, I don't see these behaviours as their only answer or think that’s where the bulk of their money is being spent, it's just that some of their answers aren't panning out like they hoped and those answers vary by what capitalist you're looking at. I know we talk about the billionaire class and the solidarity they have, but there's limits to that solidarity, because they're not a monolith, but they do share common ground, more often than not. This is a "not" scenario, however.

Oil and gas barons have poured billions and billions of their own money into CCS (at least $1.5 billion in the last 5 years alone from the figures I've seen, if not more) and used their corporate lobby to spend several billions more in public tax money on it, as well, money they used to use to fund new refineries and exploration projects.
If that private investment amount since 2016 looks small, it’s because most large-scale CCS projects were fired up around 2010 and have missed their unambitious yearly targets every single time, which decreased public funding and caused a lack of faith in the technology in its current iteration by capitalists and the market overall, most of the reduced funding for it being relegated back to R&D to take another swing. Additionally, oil and gas billionaires are directing their companies to slowly buy back public shares in their own companies, trying to lessen the impact of a highly-probable crash in the value of their companies in the long term before reverting them to delisted corporations.
But meanwhile, private investment in low to zero carbon energy was something close to $250 billion In 2016 alone, primarily invested in wind, solar and off-peak energy storage solutions to make up for wind and solar’s primary shortcomings. In fact, private investment in these technologies grossly exceeded public investment (less than 10% of money spent on renewable energy in 2016 was public funding), mostly due to public purses being beholden to the fossil fuel energy lobby (and I'll get back to that). With these numbers, it’s all but guaranteed that FAR more of their money is being spent to mitigate climate change than escape the effects of it as a whole.

That is not to say that investment in renewable energy is some altruistic endeavour, despite the knock-on effects to the public well-being they will cause and, as the above paragraphs illustrate, money is not exclusively flowing in a positive direction.

Some capitalists, indeed, do not want to see a world where capitalism ends under any circumstance; some of them see climate change as just as much of an existential crisis to capitalism as they ascribe to the rise of socialism, and we all know how much the highest classes have done to move heaven and earth preventing the ascendency of socialism, don't we? And it's not hard to understand why when it's clear how one begets the other, that the climate crisis is a major driver of 18-35yo people abandoning liberal capitalism in numbers not seen since the early 20th century, a fact that some capitalists have clearly cottoned onto and aren't happy about. This is part of what’s motivating 100s of billions per year in investment in renewables.

And I'm sorry I've diverged from the response so much, but this all demonstrates that there are capitalists who absolutely are investing very heavily in a better world but for ignoble reasons, like keeping it a decidedly capitalist world at the end, and it highlights some interesting points.

The other part that's pushing that investment forward is that the energy sector under capitalism is a captive market due to its absolute necessity, the sector that makes nearly every other facet in the modern era possible (right after or tied with the financial sector), near or at the top of the capitalist pyramid. And fossil fuel barons are in the weakest position they've ever been in right now, so a prime opportunity has been created for industrialists (heavy machinery manufacturers in particular) and industrial electronics tycoons (aka non-Silicon Valley electronics firms) to knock them down a peg and take up their position higher on the food chain, because re-building our entire energy grid around renewables (which industrialists and electronics manufacturers will be contracted to build) would net them several trillions of dollars in profits and win them all the power that fossil fuels currently have on our society. Not altruistic, but in the absence of socialism... it's better than the alternative, if only because it won't kill as many millions of people maybe? And until such a time as there's no need for rare earth minerals to build renewables, they would have allies in the non-fossil fuel resource billionaires from the mining sector. (of course, the mining companies have been hedging their bets for some time now, by originally trying to poo-poo renewables - which ingratiated them to their fossil fuel peers - in favour of nuclear power, another more finite resource that they control, but that's starting to backfire on them as they ran down the clock til it was too late to capitalize on the renewable fear-mongering and most of the world still doesn't have anywhere to bury nuclear waste, but that's a whole other discussion).

What I believe we are seeing, from everything I've already mentioned, is the dull roar of the beginnings of intra-class conflict among the billionaire set, with clear divisions.
Oil and gas billionaires have effectively made themselves no friends and I've come to understand that obfuscating the risks of climate change had as much to do with hiding that information from other capitalists, so as not to show weakness in their business model that someone else could capitalize on, as it did from the public, but they've now run out the clock and there's no escaping this truth. But being the head of the energy sector since the 19th century at least has its perks, and those perks include a LOT of government influence through things like lobbying and politicians desperately wanting to literally keep the lights on. They use this to stop renewable projects, shut down fully operational nuclear facilities and promote investment in stupid CCS projects that they hoped like hell would work and keep them in the energy business and shut out rivals, because of how much power the energy business gives them in society, more than most other capitalists could hope for. And because of the sheer volume of money it makes, fossil fuel companies also have many allies in the financial sector.
On the other side, in spite of stifled public investment, private companies that would reap a windfall on renewables work the infrastructure angle with massive private investments in the technology that accelerates renewable energy adoption and leave Silicon Valley and the like to work the consumer angle through EVs and such, and their rapid rate of technological improvement over the past 10 years makes that evident. They see oil & gas tycoons as causing and allowing capitalism to crumble on their watch, unfit for the position the oil & gas billionaires sit in and want to take that power for themselves, where they think it rightfully belongs due to the self-destructive profiteering with no long-term planning that fossil fuel billionaires have exhibited.

And you see this play out in real time. The pro-renewable camp tries to draw lines between "good capitalists" and "bad capitalists" and leverages strong public opinion in favour of stopping climate change for their benefit, while the pro-fossil fuel camp works to oust politicians that don't serve their interests (with conservatives being the most likely to belly up to their bar exclusively), run loads of political advertising to scare the public into voting the way they want them to and keep all that private investment in renewables from translating into actual public works projects and ruining their chance, however slim, to right their own ship with bullshit like CCS.

And so far, this fight has dragged out with no clear beneficiary, as most billionaire fights tend to go in the beginning until someone finally wins a decade or so later. But yes, I do in fact believe we're witnessing billionaire-on-billionaire knuckles-meet-face fighting, and one of the few instances where there's been any hint that it's happening in the public sphere. But the data sure tells the story that it's happening. And yeah, some of the rest who aren't directly involved in the fighting or think they know how it will play out? Yeah, some of them are exclusively building bunkers and finding means to escape. But I think you'll find the number of them doing that, and the money they spend doing it, isn't as much as one would think, and we should not be led to believe that they will just stand down from the capitalist project, letting it crumble as they try to walk away, because some of them ain't done with it yet if they have their say, but DO think some capitalists need to be put out to pasture. There's only so much solidarity among billionaires, because they're cannibalistic and don't mind killing and eating the weakest in their herd to protect the rest.
Click to expand...

Okay. Now this was one hell of a read.

I spent way too long looking for the like button.

Liked.

There, made my own.
 
Crusters said:
Their success or failure is completely irrelevant. It's an opportunity cost. They are spending the time and resources on trying to escape, rather than trying to mitigate or solve the issue, and they posess over 50% of the worlds resources.
Click to expand...
Let them escape. In fact, let's encourage them to leave. We can fix problems with the money supply, but with them gone there will be less resistance to the advance of socialism and solutions to their disasters.
 
So here in the UK, rail staff under the RMT union are striking (despite a popular misconception, it's largely not train drivers, who are mostly represented by a different union, but other rail staff). The union boss, Mick Lynch, has gone on a media tour and he's been incredibly impressive. British media-politics is a pantomime and he has no time for it whatsoever.

Probably my favourite appearance is where he calmly explains what a picket line is to one of our more awful media personalities trying to insinuate he'll resort to violence against agency workers brought in to break the strike.



(and yes, she did tweet her own interview and claim that Lynch was 'flustered', absolutely delusional!)
 
It's a shame Labour have got themselves into such a mess about whether to support these strikes or not.

I get that the Tories are desperate to paint this as "Labour's rail strikes" but they're Tories, they're going to do that afterwards.

Labour are meant to be the party of workers, and Starmer is now issuing ultimatums saying any frontbenchers who join them picket line will get sacked. It's a joke. All he needs to do is state it's the government's fault that rail staff aren't getting the pay they're owed, express solidarity with the workers taking a stand, and grab hold of the narrative.

But that would mean doing something other than listening to Tory focus groups, so there's no chance he'll do that.

Solidarity to all RMT staff striking this week.
 
Zellia said:
So here in the UK, rail staff under the RMT union are striking (despite a popular misconception, it's largely not train drivers, who are mostly represented by a different union, but other rail staff). The union boss, Mick Lynch, has gone on a media tour and he's been incredibly impressive. British media-politics is a pantomime and he has no time for it whatsoever.

Probably my favourite appearance is where he calmly explains what a picket line is to one of our more awful media personalities trying to insinuate he'll resort to violence against agency workers brought in to break the strike.



(and yes, she did tweet her own interview and claim that Lynch was 'flustered', absolutely delusional!)
Click to expand...

JazzPotatoes said:
It's a shame Labour have got themselves into such a mess about whether to support these strikes or not.

I get that the Tories are desperate to paint this as "Labour's rail strikes" but they're Tories, they're going to do that afterwards.

Labour are meant to be the party of workers, and Starmer is now issuing ultimatums saying any frontbenchers who join them picket line will get sacked. It's a joke. All he needs to do is state it's the government's fault that rail staff aren't getting the pay they're owed, express solidarity with the workers taking a stand, and grab hold of the narrative.

But that would mean doing something other than listening to Tory focus groups, so there's no chance he'll do that.

Solidarity to all RMT staff striking this week.
Click to expand...
Unions are important and here in the states we need more of them. But what does the RMT or any union have to do with socialism? Has Mick stated that he is a socialist?
 
Kode said:
Unions are important and here in the states we need more of them. But what does the RMT or any union have to do with socialism? Has Mick stated that he is a socialist?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes he has. Skip to 1:08 in the below video for the full question and answer (he's been accused of being a Marxist, which I mean, whatever, but in British politics that's still very much intended to be a smear). At 1:25 he explicitly says 'I'm not a Marxist. I'm a socialist, I'm a trade unionist...'

 
Kode said:
Unions are important and here in the states we need more of them. But what does the RMT or any union have to do with socialism? Has Mick stated that he is a socialist?
Click to expand...
Unions are a key part of any socialist movement: they are the organizations who represent the collective power of the workers when dealing with employers and government. It's because of the unions that we have better working conditions, better pay, etc.

Perhaps in an abstract sense you could have a socialist society without unions, but in the practical here and now, unions are key to any socialist movement. Without them, you don't get collective bargaining, you don't get industrial action, and you don't get change driven in the interests of working class people and the poor.
 
Historically, unions are the first to go whenever there's a fascist uprising, but because unions have been so badly neutered over the years everywhere outside parts of continental Europe, that's not really an indicator any more. If you want to know who the good guys are, look at who the bad guys really hate.
Also:
Graphs are really illuminating here
o3wr3xm5qka61.png

12731.png

w24587.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Zellia said:
Actually, yes he has. Skip to 1:08 in the below video for the full question and answer (he's been accused of being a Marxist, which I mean, whatever, but in British politics that's still very much intended to be a smear). At 1:25 he explicitly says 'I'm not a Marxist. I'm a socialist, I'm a trade unionist...'

Click to expand...

Thanks. I wonder if I can find out just what kind of a "socialist" he is, because an actual socialist is mostly a Marxist on most questions (but not all). For example, I'm a socialist and I follow Marx for the most part, but his writings are not like following a bible. He's a useful guide to understanding but I also recognize that he wrote some things and produced some analysis before capitalism evolved to the level we have in the USA today. So occasionally we can find something he wrote that hasn't proven to be true.
 
JazzPotatoes said:
Unions are a key part of any socialist movement: they are the organizations who represent the collective power of the workers when dealing with employers and government. It's because of the unions that we have better working conditions, better pay, etc.

Perhaps in an abstract sense you could have a socialist society without unions, but in the practical here and now, unions are key to any socialist movement. Without them, you don't get collective bargaining, you don't get industrial action, and you don't get change driven in the interests of working class people and the poor.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
beaglor said:
Historically, unions are the first to go whenever there's a fascist uprising, but because unions have been so badly neutered over the years everywhere outside parts of continental Europe, that's not really an indicator any more. If you want to know who the good guys are, look at who the bad guys really hate.
Also:
Graphs are really illuminating here
Click to expand...
Exactly! Great graphs. Thanks. If you haven't done so yet you might be interested in investigating the Powell Memorandum. It was written in 1971 as an anti-worker, anti-New Deal call-to-arms for corporate America. That is when anti-union efforts really went "full-steam ahead".
 
More strikes are going to happen here in the UK: the postal workers, and barristers.

Proper summer of discontent over here.

It's never fun having to live through strikes, but solidarity with every one of the workers going out on the picket line. One of the unforseen benefits of the rail strikes is that Mick Lynch has been out doing the media rounds, and absolutely eating for lunch every journalist and politician that has tried to show him up.

Apparently union membership has shot up across the UK off the back of this as well, so that's another silver lining.
 
JazzPotatoes said:
More strikes are going to happen here in the UK: the postal workers, and barristers.

Proper summer of discontent over here.

It's never fun having to live through strikes, but solidarity with every one of the workers going out on the picket line. One of the unforseen benefits of the rail strikes is that Mick Lynch has been out doing the media rounds, and absolutely eating for lunch every journalist and politician that has tried to show him up.

Apparently union membership has shot up across the UK off the back of this as well, so that's another silver lining.
Click to expand...
this owns, I hope some of the movements in the US see their successes and follow suit. from the little I've been exposed to him Mike Lynch seems like an excellent spokesman
 
Mike Lynch is fighting the good fight against the media and politicians at the moment, I hope the Unions all win. All industries need to do the same, tbh. The economic disparity is beyond a joke now.
 
JazzPotatoes said:
More strikes are going to happen here in the UK: the postal workers, and barristers.

Proper summer of discontent over here.

It's never fun having to live through strikes, but solidarity with every one of the workers going out on the picket line. One of the unforseen benefits of the rail strikes is that Mick Lynch has been out doing the media rounds, and absolutely eating for lunch every journalist and politician that has tried to show him up.

Apparently union membership has shot up across the UK off the back of this as well, so that's another silver lining.
Click to expand...
What is your assessment of the level of public interest for discussion and consideration of a transition to socialism in the UK? Is it ever publicly mentioned by union leaders?

It's growing in popularity here in the US but it is still pretty small at about 15% and probably about 95% of the public have incorrect ideas about what it is and how it works.
 
Kode said:
What is your assessment of the level of public interest for discussion and consideration of a transition to socialism in the UK? Is it ever publicly mentioned by union leaders?

It's growing in popularity here in the US but it is still pretty small at about 15% and probably about 95% of the public have incorrect ideas about what it is and how it works.
Click to expand...
The left wing vote is splintered across a bunch of different parties here in the UK. This has the effect of diluting public discourse, as it makes it easier for right wing parties (ie: the Tories) to win in elections and thus set the course of things.

There's actually a really strong history of British socialism, especially in the first half of the 20th Century, but unfortunately our right wing media has worked for decades to make sure it's not talked about or reported on.

While most unions here in the UK align with socialist causes and parties, they don't tend to put that stuff front and centre due to the above. Their main focus is on workplace and employment issues, and socialism is kept as the thing we're all working towards, but not shouting it from the rooftops.
 
JazzPotatoes said:
The left wing vote is splintered across a bunch of different parties here in the UK. This has the effect of diluting public discourse, as it makes it easier for right wing parties (ie: the Tories) to win in elections and thus set the course of things.

There's actually a really strong history of British socialism, especially in the first half of the 20th Century, but unfortunately our right wing media has worked for decades to make sure it's not talked about or reported on.

While most unions here in the UK align with socialist causes and parties, they don't tend to put that stuff front and centre due to the above. Their main focus is on workplace and employment issues, and socialism is kept as the thing we're all working towards, but not shouting it from the rooftops.
Click to expand...
Thanks. It looks like you Brits are a step ahead of Americans on this.
 
Dumping some recent stuff I've read/watched, mostly around Cuba.

Great mini-doc on Cuba and the effects of the US's embargo/trade restrictions.



US Labor Against Racism and War also recently did a youth delegate trip and release a short lil vid on it:



Bi-partisan support for Cuban suffering!



Good read on how apocalypse scenarios in Western media are (surprise) pretty racists and West-centric:

Most of these apocalypses depict the horror of strangers. Communities cannot form or they cannot last as the individual’s ego supersedes the collective. These stories lean into the same power fantasy as the impromptu police officer mentioned earlier. The patriarch, stink with fear and excitement, grips his weapon so tight that his knuckles try to escape his flesh. He’s cocked and ready to protect what is his — his family.

But even this excitement is contained and dishonest. To reveal it for what it is — wishful escapism — would denigrate our protagonist, maybe even the player, to the role of the “savages” he has to defeat. And they are “savages.” From Telltale’s Walking Dead to Naughty Dog’s The Last Of Us, and many many others, video game developers deploy ‘the cannibal.’ This monstrous individual has reverted to animal instincts in the absence of rules and norms to guide them otherwise. Christopher Columbus used the same tactic to justify the enslavement, murder, rape, and genocide of indigenous people in the Americas. There is a clear parallel — without the guiding presence of Western Civilisation to elevate these people out of ferality, they pose a danger to themselves and more importantly, to “civilization.”

At the mention of civilization, we should address the use of “reversion” and “regression” in this piece. These concepts are exclusively White and Western. In Audra Mitchell and Aadita Chaudhury’s research article ‘Worlding beyond ‘the’ ‘end’ of ‘the world’: white apocalyptic visions and BIPOC futurisms’ there is a coined phrase “the linear myth of time.” “At stake, these discourses (Western Post Apocalyptic Fiction) claim, is the ‘progress’ of humans and other life forms toward greater complexity and perfection,” or to paraphrase, the histories that led to our modern-day and then the fictional apocalypse were immutable, and ultimately constructive, regardless of the cost. Be it pollution into global warming, World Wars, or the Slave Trade.
Click to expand...


Related to above, I only recently learned about this bullshit:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bv8da4/the-not-so-hidden-israeli-politics-of-the-last-of-us-part-ii

More specifically, the cycle of violence in The Last of Us Part II appears to be largely modeled after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suspect that some players, if they consciously clock the parallels at all, will think The Last of Us Part II is taking a balanced and fair perspective on that conflict, humanizing and exposing flaws in both sides of its in-game analogues. But as someone who grew up in Israel, I recognized a familiar, firmly Israeli way of seeing and explaining the conflict which tries to appear evenhanded and even enlightened, but in practice marginalizes Palestinian experience in a manner that perpetuates a horrific status quo.
Click to expand...
Once Isaac and the Wolves seized control of Seattle by violent means, however, the same means were used against them by another group—one that uncomfortably matches Israeli caricatures of Palestinians.

Most of the Wolves regime's restrictions are directed at a post-apocalyptic religious sect called the Seraphites (the Wolves call them "Scars" after the ritualistic scarring of their faces). These Scars vexed FEDRA as well when it was in control. The dynamic in the city when the game begins is one of conflict, escalation, and a broken truce. The Wolves, like FEDRA, leverage more resources and raw power, while the Scars rely on surprise strikes against Wolf patrols, and a zealous willingness to die for the cause.

To run through just a few key ways in which the Scars uncomfortably reflect some Israeli stereotypes about Palestinians:

  • The same note from the Seattle FEDRA commander that bitterly says the Wolves are in charge explains that it's now their responsibility to not only feed and shelter the people of Seattle, but deal with the "religious fanatics," referring to the Scars.
  • Later in the game, Ellie finds a location called "Martyr Gate," where the Scars' spiritual leader apparently died, indicating a religious significance of a specific and disputed location, and emphasizing the notion of martyrdom as central to their culture.
  • The Scars are able to get around Wolf patrols and various barriers around the city via an elaborate, secret system of bridges between skyscrapers. These function as a kind of flipped version of the underground tunnels Palestinians use to bypass Israeli blockades and other means of limiting free movement in order to get supplies and carry out attacks on Israel.
Click to expand...
 
Update from Insanity Island:

Starmer has fired Sam Tarry from the Labour front bench for the heinous crime of appearing alongside RMT union members and workers on the picket line.

Sam Tarry becomes first Labour MP to be sacked for ‘supporting workers’

The absolute state of it over here: The Labour party is now afraid of supporting labour movements, in case it makes them unpopular with their Tory focus groups. Really not sure I can support Labour in the next election if this keeps happening.
 
Wow gosh gee. I thought this was a "socialism" forum/thread and some posters were "interested". I guess I'll just be on my way..............
 
Anton Sugar said:
Dumping some recent stuff I've read/watched, mostly around Cuba.

Great mini-doc on Cuba and the effects of the US's embargo/trade restrictions.



US Labor Against Racism and War also recently did a youth delegate trip and release a short lil vid on it:



Bi-partisan support for Cuban suffering!



Good read on how apocalypse scenarios in Western media are (surprise) pretty racists and West-centric:




Related to above, I only recently learned about this bullshit:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bv8da4/the-not-so-hidden-israeli-politics-of-the-last-of-us-part-ii
Click to expand...


Ah, I also watch Breakthrough News from time to time.

Speaking of Cuba...




^ Good presentation.
 
Yes, VERY good presentation. Thanks Merp. It's good to see some activity here. I had about given up.

It's pretty .......uh........ "interesting" how we don't hear about all the attacks on Cuba by the US. But it's apparently on-going.
 
Yesterday, the fascist president of Brazil was dethroned on the elections.
The winner, Lula, is a historical figure of unions/workers and has a good dialogue with the rest of Latin America and the world, including the socialist countries(he was friends with Fidel, for example).
He's not a socialist by any means and we gotta criticize a lot of his choices, but it's a relief to all left-wing, minorities and working class of Brazil that he was elected.
Let's keep on the base work, study and find our way to the revolution on the streets, and let's get happy that the fascist will be gone soon. And be careful not to let him do a strike. We were scared as hell for 4 years, let's bury this nightmare for good and never let it rise again.
 
I hate my job, shit pay and I just get so jealous/angry at other people who have easier jobs/better pay than I do. It just feels like everything's hopeless and we'll all die before capitalism gets overthrown.
 
Oheao said:
I hate my job, shit pay and I just get so jealous/angry at other people who have easier jobs/better pay than I do. It just feels like everything's hopeless and we'll all die before capitalism gets overthrown.
Click to expand...
I expect things will get much worse before it gets better. The standard course of events from where we are is that society crashes to the point where most people feel there's nothing more to lose and that death would be an escape from the misery. Then they rebel in unorganized random wrath and they get crushed by authorities. THEN they wise up and get organized and do what must be done.
 
Just wanted to add a post to this thread that the company I work for began redundancy consultations for my team a couple of months back. They wanted to lay off half the team, and outsource our work overseas where the company had calculated it could be done cheaper.

I got nominated as an employee representative, and was thankfully able to get in contact with my union. While they couldn't represent me officially, they were able to give me advice on every step of the process of pushing back on the company and making a counterproposal.

Off the back of that, and through the hard work of my colleagues, we were able to shut down the original company proposal due to the staggering lack of thought that went into it. We were able to get a counterproposal submitted which was accepted by the board, and even though we reduced the number of affected roles, we managed to get that few remaining at risk staff placed into other roles in the company. Upper management were completely upfront that they were amazed by the amount of preparation we put into our counterproposal.

Moral of the story: join your union, people. When the shit hits the fan, they will be there for you!
 
bellydrum said:



Not a very serious video but gave me a chuckle
Click to expand...

:love: LOL!! Yeah, stupidity is often pretty funny. This reminds me of some Jordan Klepper clips!

Unfortunately a huge portion of the population is VERY certain they know what communism is, but don’t. They know what US propaganda says and really nothing more. A funny example is in that clip, showing people advocating socialism while claiming to hate Marxism and “communism”.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom